JUDGMENT Das, J. : This Civil Revisional Application by the plaintiff-petitioner, State Bank of India is directed against an order dated September 22, 1989 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Tamluk, Midnapore in Money Suit No.1 of 1988. 2. It appears that the petitioner Bank instituted the above suit against the defendants-opposite parties to recover a sum of Rs. 3,68,217.79 Paise including interest on declaration of first charge on hypothecated goods for future interest and for certain other incidental reliefs. The contention of the Bank was that it sanctioned loan to the Opposite Party No. 1 against a cash credit account with a limit up to Rs. 1,00,000/- on the security of certain goods and on further colateral securities. The Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 stood guarantors for repayment of such amount by the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No. 1 was also maintaining another current account with the Bank with over-draft facility to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/-. A sum of Rs. 3,68,217.79 Paise was due by the Opposite Party No.1 including interest calculated upto February 17, 1987. For the purpose of repayment of the loan with interest, the Opposite Party No. 1 also executed a Power of Attorney on November 26, 1984 authorising the petitioner Bank to receive the amount of the bills payable by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to the Opposite Party No.1 for the works which the Opposite Party No.1 was doing under the said Company. In terms of the agreement contained in the Power of Attorney, the petitioner Bank agreed to advance money against the supply bills for payment submitted by the Opposite Party No. 1 to the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in respect of contract works done by the Opposite Party No.1 under the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. with further stipulation that the petitioner Bank shall have the first charge over the cheques in payment of the bills and shall also be entitled to realise the amounts of the bills direct from the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 3. The Opposite Party No. 1 made an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the Code before the learned trial Court contending, inter alia, that in an arbitration proceeding an award was made for a sum of Rs. The Opposite Party No. 1 made an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the Code before the learned trial Court contending, inter alia, that in an arbitration proceeding an award was made for a sum of Rs. 4,39,344/- to be paid by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to the Opposite Party No.1 and a cheque for that amount was forwarded by the Company to the petitioner Bank under the Company's letter dated May 30, 1989. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., by a letter dated June 6, 1989 intimated the Opposite Party No. 1 that the amount in question was sent to the petitioner Bank by cheque. It was alleged by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the claim made by the Bank in the suit was already satisfied and that only a small amount was due by the Opposite Party No. 1 to the Bank on account of interest. It was further alleged that the amount claimed by the Bank in the suit was sufficiently secured, but inspite of that the Bank was not releasing the amount of Rs. 4,39,344/- in favour of the Opposite Party No. 1 and kept such amount in suspense account. The Opposite Party No. 1 accordingly made a prayer for directing the Bank to release the amount of the aforesaid cheque in favour of the Opposite Party No 1. 4. The petitioner Bank opposed the prayer of the Opposite Parry No. 1 contending, inter alia, that it adjusted the amount of the cheque against the dues payable by the Opposite Party No.1 of the Bank. 5. By the impugned order the learned trial Court allowed the application under section 151 of the Code and directed the petitioner Bank to release the amount of Rs. 4,39,344/- in favour of the Opposite Party No. 1 holding that the claim made by the Bank in the suit was subjudice and therefore, the Bank had no authority to adjust the aforesaid amount against the claim made in the suit. The learned trial Court further observed that the Power of Attorney was a questionable document and whether such document was valid in law could be decided only at the time of final hearing of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner Bank has come up in revision. 6. Mr. The learned trial Court further observed that the Power of Attorney was a questionable document and whether such document was valid in law could be decided only at the time of final hearing of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner Bank has come up in revision. 6. Mr. Subrata Roy, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended, that the learned trial Court committed error in law in entertaining the application under section 151 of the Code. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that the application under section 151 of the Code is not maintainable in law and the learned trial Judge could not assume jurisdiction on the basis of such application to direct the petitioner Bank to release the amount. It is further submitted by Mr. Roy that the Opposite Party No.1 could seek relief if any by a separate suit against the Bank. 7. Mr. Tarun Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party No. 1 has contended, that in the circumstances of the case the Court had ample jurisdiction to direct the petitioner Bank to release the amount in the exercise of the inherent power vested in the Court under Sec. 151 of the Code. It is submitted that in such a case there was no reason why the Opposite Party No. 1 should be compelled to institute fresh suit against the Bank when the question involved arises in the pending suit by the Bank against the Opposite Party No. 1 Mr. Chatterjee has referred to the decision reported in (1) AIR 1968 Calcutta at page 305 and (2) AIR 1975 Delhi at page 175 and has argued that in appropriate cases the court may exercise the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code to give relief to the parties to a litigation. 8. In the case reported in AIR 1968 Calcutta at page 305 the wife instituted the suit for maintenance and residence for herself and for her daughter against her husband under the provision of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. There being no provision for granting interim maintenance in that Act, the question arose for consideration as to whether the interim maintenance could be granted by the Court on an application under Sec. 151 of the Code made by the wife. There being no provision for granting interim maintenance in that Act, the question arose for consideration as to whether the interim maintenance could be granted by the Court on an application under Sec. 151 of the Code made by the wife. It was held that in suitable cases where on the materials before it the Court finds no difficulty in assessing the reasonable maintenance and where the marriage is not hotly contested, the Court should made an order for interim maintenance in the interest of justice by invoking the powers conferred under section 151 of the Code. In the case reported in AIR 1975 Delhi at page 175, it was held that in a suit for partition of Hindu Joint Family property an interim order under the inherent powers of the Court granting payment of marriage expenses of daughter can be passed against the father when there is no provision prohibiting passing of such an interim order. 9. Having heard the submissions made by the learned Advocates of both sides, it appears to us that section 151 of the Code cannot be invoked to give any relief to the Opposite Party No. 1 in exercise of the inherent power of the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the Opposite party No. 1 the Bank is bound to pay to the Opposite Party No. 1 the amount of the cheque which the petitioner Bank received from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on account of the Opposite Party No. 1 and the petitioner Bank has no authority to adjust such amount against the dues payable to the Bank. Thus, according to the Opposite Party No. 1, its claim is based on as independent cause of action and, therefore, it is open to the Opposite Party No. 1 to take such legal action as is permissible by law to recover such amount from the petitioner Bank if the Opposite Party No. 1 considers that the petitioner Bank illegally withheld such amount. It is not permissible for the Opposite Party No. 1 to seek an order under section 151 of the Code for payment of the amount by the petitioner Bank in the pending suit. Again, as already stated, according to the petitioner Bank it received the amount of the cheque directly from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in terms of the Power of Attorney. Again, as already stated, according to the petitioner Bank it received the amount of the cheque directly from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in terms of the Power of Attorney. Further contention of the petitioner Bank is that according to such terms of the Power of Attorney it has a first chare over the amount of cheque and it has the right to adjust such amount against its dues. The learned trial Court observed that the question whether the power of Attorney is legally valid or not can be decided only at the time of final hearing of the suit. It was, therefore not proper and legal to direct the petitioner Bank to release the amount of cheque in favour of he Opposite Party No. 1 even before the learned trial Court decided the question whether the Power of Attorney was a legally valid document and whether in terms of such Power of Attorney the petitioner Bank was entitled to adjust the amount of the cheque against its dues. In our view, the learned trial Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in taking the view that in exercise of the inherent power it could direct the petitioner Bank to release the amount of the cheque in favour of the Opposite Party No. 1. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court cannot, therefore, be sustained and must be set aside. 10. In the result, the revisional application is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Ahmed, J. : I agree.